I recall one of my teachers showed us this taxonomy; I believe it was Mr. Raymond in 5th grade. He asked where we thought we got in most of the class work. We thought it went to the fourth of fifth level, and were shocked when he admitted most of the education system was geared to to level one. He was a no-nonsense guy, having been in one of the first tanks ashore on D-Day.
I doubt you’d get too many teachers who would be as candid today. Heck, they probably think their spoonfeeding of liberal dogma counts as “creativity.”
I've probably had an inner dislike of x ever since high school algebra.
I was first exposed to Bloom's taxonomy some 20 years ago and it seemed pointless to me, but for about 12 years had a chairman who was a big believer in it and similar systems.
srbfl
A good teacher uses Bloom’s taxonomy in a variety of effective ways and understands, from tons of experience, that knowing/remembering is the most vital aspect. Most teachers who have experience know the fallacy of the so-called “best-practices” as well.
;-)
We see all of this educational “expertise” recycled regularly over a period of years. There’s not a great deal that is *new* in the realm of teaching practices...except perhaps in the area of brain research.
I’ve always approached and understood Bloom in the same way as Maslow’s Hierarchy in that lower levels had to be satisfied in order to work/live/learn at the higher levels. In other words, knowing/memorization creates a baseline to move on to the other levels where the information can be manipulated to achieve needs, wants, or desires. The article author’s two-level approach is also a valid method, along with the recommended addition of the word “facts” to Bloom to create better context for the taxonomy.
They were a pretty good band.
I have never seen “taxonomy” written this many times ever.